[civilian_number_two]

Wow, this thread sure picked up in the last couple of days! There's no way I can get in on it all, but I sure do want to!

Sailor Abbey: Domitian was considered the reincarnation of Nero, "the beast that had been slain." He was also the second emperor (after Nero) to make a strong push for the deification of the Emperor himself and the persecution of Christianity. I know you didn't suggest it, but many understand that the city of Babylon, on "seven hills," is the Rome that "John" would have known, and not something silly like the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican city, btw, does not encompass the city of Rome). Many who do make this understanding suggest that the Book of Revelation was written in "code" so that the Romans wouldn't understand it. This is of course nonsense, since the name Jesus is peppered through it. Anyone who read it would have understood it as Apocalyptic literature, with a message that the present evil would be defeated eventually and that God's patient people would endure. Please see also similar writings made during the Hebrews' captivity under Nebuchadnezzar (the Book of Daniel).

Zatoichi: To say you don't understand how something could have happened, and then to conclude "God," is to commit tyhe same crime you accuse the scientists of committing. You are supplying a conclusion to your problem without evidence. Whereas in the history of science, we have acknowledged our own errors or exposed those of predecessors, religious explanations, relying on no evidence, have not had a need to develop. Where did the water go? God. How did all those species come to be on the planet? God. Is there life on other planets? NO! But if so, then God.

Where did the water go? Water is formed by a chemical bond. The current theroy is that the oxygen is in the limestone that is prvalent on the planet's surface, while the Hydrogen enriches the soil. Its discovery is the source of the news you report. Evolution is a THEORY, yes, like the THEORY of gravity. Remember that the word THEORY does not mean the same thing as HYPOTHESIS and you won't sound half as much like a liberal arts student trying to defend Christianity against mean old science. People in the time of Christ believed in a round Earth, though people in times before that had not. Isaiah believed in a flat Earth, for sure. The Hebrews were a prescientific people, and they wrote of a flat Earth. The Greeks were amazing theoreticians, composing science without long tedious studies or miles of evidence. They noticed that ships on the horizon "dipped" into the sea. Aristotle had observed that the Earth cast a round shadow on the moon, like the shadow one sphere casts on another. Eratosthenes went on to gauge its size based on a rumour he'd heard about the location of the sun at the solstice in Egypt. He compared this rumour with shadows measured at home in Greece and extrapolated the size of the spherical Earth. He was more or less accurate, too, within a scientific allowance, except for the bulge in the centre. All of this was lost for a time when Christianity took over the Hellenised world, and science was suppressed. Galileo was placed under house arrest for saying things everyone already knew were true. Science was lost for centuries, only to be rediscovered when nations learned how valuable science could be for warfare. Etc.

Corvax: Every word of it brilliant. I do think there is something to those apocryphal gospels, though the Gospel of Mary, like you say, is doubtful, likely written in later centuries when Cathoplics wanted more shit about Mary to remind folks how important she is. The only thing I have any contest with in what you have said is that relgion survives because "people don't like to think for themselves." Well, maybe for some, but maybe too religion survives because people feel it fills a personal need, and yes, they pick and choose the elements that fit their personal moral scheme. I would say that a number of things survive for the reason you cite, for instance consumerism, homophobia, racism and war (all frequently defended by religions, but each having its own origin). But religion can be and has been a relatively harmless enterprise that connects people and is responsible for marriages and business partnerships and the building of communities. I would say when managed properly religion is just a life philosophy, and in its absence we would have somehting else, which heaven forbid would probably be some cult of dietng and self-improvement. I am an atheist and I can't say that religion is ONLY a crutch for the stupid and the purposeless. Most of our great theoretical scientistists were Christian (Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein among the most common notables mentioned), and I won't say they couldn't think for themselves.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 27 February 2006 - 04:43 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

Actually, the Gospel of Mary is (supposedly) written by Mary Magdalene, not Mary, Holy Mother of God, which would be the Mary Catholics would later place importance on. Also, no, the Catholic church did not have anything to do with this text, it was one of the gospels of the Gnostic groups. It was found more than once with other texts that completely contradict core beliefs and concepts of biblical Christianity, which is why it's discounted along with the other texts found at Nag Hammadi and the like.

[Deepsycher]

Just a question I thought of: How about for those who are blessed out of the bible for issues that are not serious to the religion?

[Zatoichi]

I appologize for this long ass post
civilian_number_two: I need to clear up a few misconceptions. I am a firm believer in science. Although I may be a liberal arts student, it is because I am interested in acting, writing, and directing. I also happen to do above average in math and science. When I happen to apply myself to those subjects, I happen to do excellently.
Contrary to what you may think, scientists have mounds and mounds of evidence. The problem is, is that they formulated a model to structure that datum around, and choose to disregard information that held to the contrary. You may know that most of the work done to disprove evolutionary theory has been done by evolutionists, in evolutionist labs, funded by evolutionists. A lot of information that I have recently gotten was from a chemist who was the former CEO of one of the top chemical companies in the world. He did a presentation at the college that I am attending. He too once thought that the Bible was a bunch of BS. What happened was that he found out what I have just said. Evolutionary theory was a model that selected datum was made to fit. The rest was disregarded.

Personally, until hearing this myself, I did accept evolutionary theory. I thought that scientists had almost nigh unreffutable proof that that was how it had happened. Finding out that evolutionary theory could almost be considered a hoax was a bit of a change for me. Now, I don't entirely agree with everything the man said, but he did make a lot of sense. I asked him to e-mail me all of the information, but I am having a little trouble with my computer.

Anyways, I have read some sceintific journals with thoeries concerning the formation of our solar systems, and how Earth came to be the perfect planet for life to be on. I cannot remember offhand, but it had something to do with Jupiter's gravity, the Sun, and Mars. I'll try to look into it when I find the time. I also found out recently, that perhaps the flood was only about an occurance at the Black Sea. The Black Sea is a freshwater sea, and archeaologists have found evidence that suggests it had filled extremely rapidly. There happen to be whole ancient villages and parts of docks inside of it.

As for the last bit, it wasn't Christianity, it was those f-ing Catholics. Sure Protestants have done awful things too, but in those instances it was the Catholics. It was also the rich who helped to do this. Keeping people uneducated helped to keep them in power, as it still does today (except that the wealthy recieve a much better education). As for how science was valuable to warfare, are you refering to the Rennisance?

Madam Corvax: Well, I'm glad your not taking it personally. But I must apologize, I think I may have misinterpreted your views quite a bit. After having read all of that, I have come to a different conclusion of sorts. I'm afraid that it was the tone of your post that I had quoted that had thrown me off.

Honestly, I dislike all people who do awful things and try to oppress those around them. I hate those that have given organized religion a bad name only to further their own ends in this world. Sure, I believe that they ended up in Hell, but does that really help anyone on Earth. The answer is no, it only makes things worse.

I do not remember ever saying this - why would I - what do you mean by that? What did you want to say?
I think I accidentally thought that that was your opinion on the matter. What I'm really getting at, is that there are bad people in all things, no matter where you look. And of course, good people do bad things as well.

Now this is a curious quote. You actually support my view that religion is irrational and pretty pointless. Why would any supposedly wise God give us a religion which is so hard to follow? I don't get it.
You're missing the point, but I do agree with your question. Since I don't know, all I can do for now is cop-out and say that it was not meant to be easy. Also, keep in mind that according to Christianity and Judism, it was human beings that f-ed up in the first place.

If you feel that need, fine, but do not tell me that you are somehow better than me because when in distres, you pray.
Umm, I don't think I'm better than you because I pray. I don't remember saying that. Ever. In my opinion, it is ignorant to think you are a better person because you pray. You can only be better for the way you live your life.

No, it is not. Here:
http://www.talkorigi...ions.html#proof
Forgive me that for the lack of space I direct you to a source. If you do not feel convinced, do more search, there are hundreds of good sources on the theory of evolution and refutals of it (and ID too)
Thanks, I'll try to get to it when I have time.

Now what is that supposed to prove? If Bible was indeed written under God's guidance, whouldn't the all wise God corrected the error? Unless the God wanted to protect and spead lies. Now what kind of GOd is that? It only proves that Bible was a creation of people, because it reflects the status of human morality and knowledge at that time.
No, I don't think that it was entirely. They say it was written with the divine influence of God, but I recognize the fact that the Bible was written by people. And I believe that we can agree when I say people are by no means perfect. Also, each book of the Bible happens to be compilations of notes by whoever authored it, but they were usually not the ones who put it together. Most were put together long after the events that had taken place in them had happened. There was a council, and later a Pope Gregory the something, who had the books edited and choose which books would stay and which would go. The ones that went were either kept hidden or burned. To top it all off, each book was translated first from Hebrew into Greek, and then into whatever other language was desired. Therefore, I take the Bible with a grain of salt and wholeheartedly agree that it has it's shortcomings. I beleive it is quite reasonable that I sometimes pick and choose what I do and don't reasonably agree with from within the Bible.

I am afraind that my grasp of English is failing me. What do you mean?
I only meant that you were stating the obvious.

Oh no, you are allowed to talk like that only I would not consider it valid arguments. It only proves that you have not thought much about what you have just written. I suspect you are merely repeating someone else's beliefs and take them as your own. It proves that when somebody bases his/her personal beliefs on religion it is not very rational. Well, if God really wanted me to believe in all this, he should have made me less rational. Otherwise, sorry God, I just can't believe because it all falls apart.
Oh no, I am all ears. To rational discussion, rational arguments, facts, logical proofs. The problem is, with religion you can't provide these. You can talk about your own personal religious experience, you are perfectly entitled to. You can say how you met Jesus, how he revelead the truth about the universe to you, but these arguments mean nothing to me. They are by definition subjective.
I was kind of making a joke to prove a point. A rather bad joke at that. I even admitted that I was being an ass. To put down your suspicions, no I am not merely repeating what others believe. In fact, unlike most, I am actually willing to admit to flaws and such and am open to at least consider other ideas. I don't believe that that is an irrational way of going around believing. Concerning the second to last sentence in the second paragraph, please don't mock me. That was overly insulting.

To finish it up, atheism is technically a system of beliefs. Like all religions it to has explanations for the way things began. Did you know that they did not want to use the Big Bang theory at first? This was because the theory implied that everything had a beginning and that before that there was nothing. We can get more into this if you like, but I think that I would need a lot more information first.

Oh, and Dr. Lecter, I would be personally pleased to hear why you dislike organized religion so much. That way you can finally explain why you've been bitching so much about it.

This post has been edited by Zatoichi: 28 February 2006 - 12:10 AM

[Slade]

Civ: I believe it was the Spoon who mentioned the apocraphal gospels and the Gospel of Mary. And you took all of my points, so I don't have much to respond to anymore.

Lecter: No, I don't want to hear it, any more than I want to hear people trashing other belief systems. Like Civ said, and I've alluded to, when taken in a healthy context, they're just life philosophies with some mythology mixed in to help explain the unknown of the time that their texts were written.

Gobbler: Being die-hard anything is a dangerous thought process to take. In my opinion, zealotous Atheists are bad as religious zealots. That's not implying that you are, just that I'm nervous that you might be.

[Madam Corvax]

Civ - Einstein was not a Christian. He was a religious person, true, but here is couple of quotation to prove that he was anythng but Christian. I post them here rather than provide links, because I noticed nobody even looks at links:
"An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls" - i.e. - no soul

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a
wish addressed to a supernatural Being. " - i.e prayer is useless

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. " so, consequently, no hell, no heaven, no redemption for our sins etc. Not very Christian like.

Zatoichi - again, your views strike me as pretty muddled. Think about what Civ said about the difference between theory and hypothesis and ponder these things.

You wrote:

You may know that most of the work done to disprove evolutionary theory has been done by evolutionists, in evolutionist labs, funded by evolutionists

No, actually, I don't know. Please provide appropriate links with viable arguments. I honestly don't see those scientists disregarding evidence to the contrary. And it is rather suspicious that CEO of a chemical comapny poses as a scientists and chooses to deliver speeches and a college. Being a CEO of a chemical company and a major in chemistry hardly strikes me as qualifications which entitle you to debunk the theory of evolution. I also work for a top international company and I may be a CEO one day, and I majored in physics - does that make me more believable in your eyes?

Also this man "too once thought that the Bible was a bunch of BS" - I take he does not believe it any more, right? So what does he believe now? Which parts? All of it literally? No? So which parts he disregards and which are under divine influence? HOW does one know? You say that
"I beleive it is quite reasonable that I sometimes pick and choose what I do and don't reasonably agree with from within the Bible."

It always strikes me as odd, this selective faith. You either support a doctrine or not. If you start questioning things, you stop short at one point, but which one? How do you know? Because of your reason? Well, I went one step further - my reason tells me that it is all human creation and nobody can prove to me that it was written under a god's influence.

You also wrote:
Since I don't know, all I can do for now is cop-out and say that it was not meant to be easy. Also, keep in mind that according to Christianity and Judism, it was human beings that f-ed up in the first place

And that is something I don't get either. Why create a human being which f-d up in the first place? The whole question about evil, sin, and free will is very, very muddled. If we follow those lines, it is actually cruel to try to convert pagans, because you teach them just how much their ancestors f-d up and now they must pay for it. Would it not be better just to leave them believe innocently in sun and moon? This is a complex question, if you want a debate why the idea of evil in the world is not to be reconciled with idea of a God which is good and omnipotent, fine. Let me know.

You also wrote:
"Umm, I don't think I'm better than you because I pray" but before that you wrote "Why, I don't go around telling atheists they are full of shit even though I think they might be"

Forgive me, but in this instant I do not think my knowledge of English register was failing me. You think atheist might be full of shit. I gathered you consider yourself not full of shit, but you think that I just might be. I really think my conclusion from this sentence was correct - you actually consider yourself better than me. (i.e. not full of shit). Correct me if I am wrong in my logic above. I do not, however, hold it against you, because I notice that sometimes you just don't know what you write.

"Concerning the second to last sentence in the second paragraph, please don't mock me. That was overly insulting."

Now I don't get it. Which of my sentences you find insulting? Surely not "You can say how you met Jesus, how he revelead the truth about the universe to you, but these arguments mean nothing to me. " There were many instances of mystics in history who claimed that had personal visions from Virgin Mary or Jesus, but again, I repeat, these means nothing to me. These are personal experiences, and as such, cannot be treated as objective arguments.

"To finish it up, atheism is technically a system of beliefs"

NOPE. Atheism is lack of faith in deity. It is a common misconception that athist prove that there is no God and say there is no God. I simply don't believe in God, just as much as I don't believe in Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy, whatever that might be. The burden of proof that GOd exists lies with theists. You believe something of which there is no proof in my opinion. Please prove to me that God exists, and then I will believe that God exist.

Oh, and considering the question of the beginning of universe, this is one of the five proofs that God exist by St Thomas of Aquina (13th century). Any philosophy book can tell you that Sadly, none of these five points hold water.

So, I wholeheartedly agree with you that indeed you need a lot more information first.

And lastly Slade - it was I who said that I am a die-hard atheist, not Gobbler. I only said that to make my point more strongly. I am die-hard in that sense that nobody so far has resented me with any acceptable agruments in favour of existence of deity.

[Jordan]

'If you find yourself in a fox hole, you'll no longer be an athiest.' - some guy in the army

Why is the first mover argument bad? Aquinas made that one right? All effects have causes and so forth.

[Jordan]

Ok I just found a bunch of arguements. They are in point form and easy to read.

I'm typing word for word here. This may take me a while so you better read them. I can't find any flaws with them and they all sound so smart and well thought up. I've never taken a philosophy course, so I may be over my head.

Cosmological Argument

Aquinas argument from motion

1) Things do move. Motion is the most obvious form of change.
2) Change is a passing from potency to act.
3) Nothing passes from potency to act except by something that is in acutality, for it is impossible for a potentiality to actualise itself.
4)There cannot be an infinite regress of actualizers or movers. If there is no First Mover, there can be no subsequent motion, since all subsequent motion depends on prior movers for its motion
5) Therefore, there must be a first, unmoved mover, a pure actualizer with no potentiality in it that is unactualized.
6) Everyone understands this to be God

Leibniz: The Argument from Sufficient Reason

1) The entire (observed) world is changing
2) Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence
3) There is a sufficient reason for everything, either in itself or else beyond itself
4) Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence
5) This cause is either its own sufficient reason or else it has a cause beyond it.
6) There cannot be an infint regress of sufficient reasons, for the failure ot reach an explanation is not an explanation; but there must be an explanation
7)Therefore, there must be a first cause of the worldthat has no reason beyond it but is its own sufficient reason. The sufficient reason is in itself and not beyond itself.

These guys sound pretty intelligent to me. I've got hordes of these point form arguments. I don't want to type them all out though.

One thing I never understood about evolution is how the infomation is stored in the body and carried and passed to other beings. Like how did we know we wanted eyes if we never had them? How did the single cell figure out that it needed eyes and how did it communicate it to other cells and how did they pass the information on their offspring.

Or if a bear wants to eat salmon. He spends time in the water. How would he possiblely start preparing for evolution? How would his body, if not his consious mind, prepare for it? How would other bears figure this out, so that they could mate with one another and keep doing so until one day 1 billion years into the future they would be able to breathe underwater?

I'm no rocket scientist. But I do have a background in optics (lol 1 course) and from what I can tell, it's pretty heavy shit. How would nature know to make an eye? How would it gather this information? We're pretty smart, human beings. And we're not talking to one another about how we need to change and setting up mating sessions for people with common evolutinary goals. Is it being stored in our blood? Or our sub consious mind? I think man has been thinking about flying for a long time now, is that the start to evolution of wings? Like I have no clue what they hell they're talking about. What started the evolutionary way of thinking? There must be some really sound evidence out there. I've read a few book and had a class or two. But nothing really answers my questions.

It just seems so bizzare. So much complexity. It seems easier to just to assume that some entity made it that way. I mean they're both out of this world and beyond us.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 28 February 2006 - 05:09 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Cosmological Argument

Aquinas argument from motion

1) Things do move. Motion is the most obvious form of change.
2) Change is a passing from potency to act.
3) Nothing passes from potency to act except by something that is in acutality, for it is impossible for a potentiality to actualise itself.
4)There cannot be an infinite regress of actualizers or movers. If there is no First Mover, there can be no subsequent motion, since all subsequent motion depends on prior movers for its motion
5) Therefore, there must be a first, unmoved mover, a pure actualizer with no potentiality in it that is unactualized.
6) Everyone understands this to be God

Leibniz: The Argument from Sufficient Reason

1) The entire (observed) world is changing
2) Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence
3) There is a sufficient reason for everything, either in itself or else beyond itself
4) Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence
5) This cause is either its own sufficient reason or else it has a cause beyond it.
6) There cannot be an infint regress of sufficient reasons, for the failure ot reach an explanation is not an explanation; but there must be an explanation
7)Therefore, there must be a first cause of the worldthat has no reason beyond it but is its own sufficient reason. The sufficient reason is in itself and not beyond itself.

I'm sorry, but both arguments are shit. Both make the claim that there cannot be a thing without a cause, except for one thing, which is God. The implication too is the Christain God, right?

You know about sets and subsets, right? Grade six math I believe? All of the causes and effects, and ideas and reasons of the two arguments above, belong to their own sets. There is a larger set of such ideas and causes and whatnot that includes these subsets, but includes other stuff, like the causes of those. This larger set must be God!!!! That's the argument in a nutshell. It's rubbish.

Lets' say, for argument, that the unproven statement that all effects must have a cause, therefore a First Cause is necessary," is correct. How must this first cause be God? If we acknowledge the need for a first cause, can't it simply be of itself without having all of the attributes for God attached to it? After all, we know how God came to be: humans wrote about it. How the Universe came to be needn't have anything to do with the stories humans write to one another. That's Occam's Razor.

Another way to put it is that if something is so complicated that it must have been designed, then whatever designs it is more complicated, therefore must also have a designer. So if the famous "watch on the beach" argument is applied to the Universe, and we decide that God must have been onhand to design the Universe, then it is reasonable by the exact same argument that something must have been onhand to design God, and so forth.

It becomes so relentlessly regressive tht the simplest thing is to avoid a priori arguments to prove God and rely only on the direct evidence. Of which I have none, never having met a God or seen it perform a miracle. Although yeah, those smiles on babies' faces sure do make a convincing case, right?


Z: What Corvax said about evolution having been disproven by the CEO of a chemical company. This is big news, pretty much the largest theory on the past 200 years has been disproven, flat out, and scientists are still soldiering away at trying to prop up their conspiracy? Hmm. Might need a citation, maybe some figures. This guy published? Frankly, the notion that he "once thought the Bible was BS but now believes it" is a pretty standard template for a testimonial story. You do recognise that in order to speak against alcoholism, one must first be an alcoholic? You can't just be a sober person who hates drunks? So these guys always say that they are former atheists, until they studied their beliefs and "proved" God. This is the snake-oil movement of moden fundamentalism. Don't be fooled into thinking it's science until you can get your computer working properly and fashion us with some evidence. And yeah, I meant the Renaissance more or less, but warfare earned much from science so politicians listened less to the churches when it came time to decide whether to arrest scientists for their funky inventions and ideas. Your comments on Catholics is just your own religious bigotry. You say you're Christian, so you're reading the scriptures the Catholics compiled. If their religious is bullshit, then you Bible has a bullshit history. Why don't you assemble your own Bible?

Brain farts earlier: yeah, Mary Magdalene, woops, who by the way is a nearly fictional character, insofar as her story has been embellished and amalgamated in pop culture with the stiry of the adulterous woman (read Mark 16:9 for her original backstory before rewatching any of the films made of the life or death of Jesus). Knew that, forgot, my bad. And yeah, I meant those scientists were religious; I hadn't meant to say they were all Christian. I believe Einstein was Jewish. Those are awesome citations though Corvax, but I still think Einstein was a religious man. All the same, it's beside the point I was trying to make: reasonability and religious devotion are not mutually exclusive. It's a bit mean to say they are.

[Jordan]

So the first cause of the universe could have been an infinite non-intelligent thing? I don't understand the sub sets thing. I'm sure I know what it is, I've just never heard that term used. But whatever, I understand that the argument simply passes off the burden on God.

Is it possible for some form of energy or chemical to exist that could take the place of what we call God? Ie- has no intelligence, simply exists without a creator. I think the nutshell effect is a means to cut off the otherwise infinite cycle of cause and effect. Something we can't really comprhend. I mean, doesn't it contradict everything if something with in this universe can accomplish that? I thought the whole idea of God was that he was a supernatural entity, living outside of our universe. It kind of caps off the loop and gives a beginning to things. Sure, you can say "who made God" but at that point it's silly since we can't comprhenend the supernatural.

I still don't see how it's BS though.

thing without a cause- It makes such simple sense to me. Either you believe the universe was eternal or God is eternal. Eitherway you're banking on the same logic only calling it a different name. Nature or God, no?

This post has been edited by Jordan: 28 February 2006 - 06:21 AM

[Gobbler]

NOPE. Atheism is lack of faith in deity. It is a common misconception that athist prove that there is no God and say there is no God. I simply don't believe in God, just as much as I don't believe in Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy, whatever that might be.

The... tooth fairy... doesn't... exist?

And lastly Slade - it was I who said that I am a die-hard atheist, not Gobbler.

Hmm, yes, that might explain why I was a little bit confused about Slade's post... I'm more of a die-soft atheist, if anything.

One thing I never understood about evolution is how the infomation is stored in the body and carried and passed to other beings. Like how did we know we wanted eyes if we never had them? How did the single cell figure out that it needed eyes and how did it communicate it to other cells and how did they pass the information on their offspring.

Genes. They're like a blueprint, just better. As for the "how did we get eyes"-thing... gee, that'd be all too much to put in here. I'm sure that there are enough sources out there that can explain it in a rather easy manner.

I'm no rocket scientist. But I do have a background in optics (lol 1 course) and from what I can tell, it's pretty heavy shit. How would nature know to make an eye?

Trial and error, and lots of time. Survival of the fittest ensured that working concepts would be passed on.

etc. etc. ... Or our sub consious mind? etc. etc. ...

That's pretty close to it. Look at how our appearance is often reflecting our character. We're able to make such visible changes as well as others, which are not perceptable in one generation.

It seems easier to just to assume that some entity made it that way. I mean they're both out of this world and beyond us.

Well fine, do as you please, as long as you're not building a ridiculous cult around it.

[Jordan]

So your DNA can figure out what you need even though it may not exist or even be all that apparent to the organism? And wouldn't that organism have to mate with other organisms with common evolutionary goals. I mean, things would get cluttered in the DNA after years of mating. Is DNA that smart, can it order and structure things according to some kind of will?

[Madam Corvax]

I was just preparing such a lovely post for Jordan's benefit to debunk the First Cause and Civ beat me to it. Anyway:

"[…] The fundamental principle in the argument is that everything which initiates change must have been initiated in some way itself. This principle, must therefore be applied to the Prime Mover as well. There is no logical reason why we should stop applying that principle at that point. […]. Yet he postulated the existence of The Unmoved Mover that violates the argument's own fundamental premise. The irritating (to believers) question of a naturally skeptical child sums up the main problem with the first way: If God made the world, who made God?
[…]
For one thing, why shouldn't the first cause be the universe itself rather than God. If it is argued that the universe also needs to be caused, then the same would be true for God. If one then asserts that God is "uncaused", the same assertion can be made for the universe”

http://www.geocities...in/aquinas.html

Civ, I also said that Einstein was religious person. However. he was not Christian (you said that). I don't know what he believed. Maybe he had profound reasons to do so, but he did not communicate them. Hence, his example cannot make me believe in God, or be a proof of anything. It is certain, however, that he did not believe in personalised God, soul, immortality sins, redemptions ect. It is exactly the idea of god I know and reject as false and contrary to reason.

Maybe if Einstein taught some of his beliefs in a more specific way I would have accepted his arguments. As it was, however, it does not prove or disprove anything. He did not believe in a Christian god - neither do I.

[Gobbler]

There are recessive and dominant genes, as you might know. Of course it's all cluttered. And DNA isn't smart. A blueprint isn't smart. It's made by us on a very sub-conscious level. And before we could influence it, it was all a matter of chemical reactions.

[Jordan]

This principle, must therefore be applied to the Prime Mover as well. There is no logical reason why we should stop applying that principle at that point

But I thought that was the point of the argument. The principle does not need to apply to God since the definition of God is all powerful, ever lasting, supernatural etc...

.